A systematic review of the barriers and facilitators impacting patient enrolment in clinical trials for lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Clinical research trials are needed to enhance the medical care and treatment for lung cancer, which remains the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. While clinical trials allow for the development of novel therapies to treat cancer, the recruitment of lung cancer patients to trials is low. This review aimed to identify and synthesise the available literature concerning barriers and facilitators affecting lung cancer patients' decisions to enrol in clinical trials to guide future cancer research efforts. METHODS: Four databases were systematically searched: Academic Search Complete, CINHAL, PubMed, and PsycINFO in August 2023. A supplemental grey literature search was also conducted alongside this. Articles were quality appraised using CASP and JMI checklists, and results were narratively synthesised. RESULTS: Eighteen articles of varied design met the inclusion criteria, and results were mapped onto the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Behaviour (COM-B) Model to help structure and conceptualise review findings. Evidence suggests that the decision to enrol in a trial is multifaceted and informed by: when and how study information is presented, travel and trial eligibility, and altruistic hopes and fears. CONCLUSIONS: There is need to address the many different concerns that lung cancer patients have about participating in a clinical trial through the supply of accessible and timely trial information, and via the reduction of travel, expansion of study eligibility criteria, and recognition of a person's altruistic wishes, hopes, fears, and family-oriented concerns. Future research should aim to work alongside lung cancer patients, clinicians, and other stakeholders to increase research accessibility.

Determining the impact of an artificial intelligence tool on the management of pulmonary nodules detected incidentally on CT (DOLCE) study protocol: a prospective, non-interventional multicentre UK study.

INTRODUCTION: In a small percentage of patients, pulmonary nodules found on CT scans are early lung cancers. Lung cancer detected at an early stage has a much better prognosis. The British Thoracic Society guideline on managing pulmonary nodules recommends using multivariable malignancy risk prediction models to assist in management. While these guidelines seem to be effective in clinical practice, recent data suggest that artificial intelligence (AI)-based malignant-nodule prediction solutions might outperform existing models. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is a prospective, observational multicentre study to assess the clinical utility of an AI-assisted CT-based lung cancer prediction tool (LCP) for managing incidental solid and part solid pulmonary nodule patients vs standard care. Two thousand patients will be recruited from 12 different UK hospitals. The primary outcome is the difference between standard care and LCP-guided care in terms of the rate of benign nodules and patients with cancer discharged straight after the assessment of the baseline CT scan. Secondary outcomes investigate adherence to clinical guidelines, other measures of changes to clinical management, patient outcomes and cost-effectiveness. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been reviewed and given a favourable opinion by the South Central-Oxford C Research Ethics Committee in UK (REC reference number: 22/SC/0142).Study results will be available publicly following peer-reviewed publication in open-access journals. A patient and public involvement group workshop is planned before the study results are available to discuss best methods to disseminate the results. Study results will also be fed back to participating organisations to inform training and procurement activities. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05389774.

Multimodality local consolidative treatment versus conventional care of advanced lung cancer after first-line systemic anti-cancer treatment: study protocol for the RAMON multicentre randomised controlled trial with an internal pilot.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer death worldwide and most patients present with extensive disease. One-year survival is improving but remains low (37%) despite novel systemic anti-cancer treatments forming the current standard of care. Although new therapies improve survival, most patients have residual disease after treatment, and little is known on how best to manage it. Therefore, residual disease management varies across the UK, with some patients receiving only maintenance systemic anti-cancer treatment while others receive local consolidative treatment (LCT), alongside maintenance systemic anti-cancer treatment. LCT can be a combination of surgery, radiotherapy and/or ablation to remove all remaining cancer within the lung and throughout the body. This is intensive, expensive and impacts quality of life, but we do not know if it results in better survival, nor the extent of impact on quality of life and what the cost might be for healthcare providers. The RAMON study (RAdical Management Of Advanced Non-small cell lung cancer) will evaluate the acceptability, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of LCT versus no LCT after first-line systemic treatment for advanced lung cancer. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: RAMON is a pragmatic open multicentre, parallel group, superiority randomised controlled trial. We aim to recruit 244 patients aged 18 years and over with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer from 40 UK NHS hospitals. Participants will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive LCT alongside maintenance treatment, or maintenance treatment alone. LCT will be tailored to each patient's specific disease sites. Participants will be followed up for a minimum of 2 years. The primary outcome is overall survival from randomisation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The West of Scotland Research Ethics Committee (22/WS/0121) gave ethical approval in August 2022 and the Health Research Authority in September 2022. Participants will provide written informed consent before participating in the study. Findings will be presented at international meetings, in peer-reviewed publications, through patient organisations and notifications to patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN11613852.

ERS/ESTS/ESTRO/ESR/ESTI/EFOMP statement on management of incidental findings from low dose CT screening for lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Screening for lung cancer with low radiation dose computed tomography has a strong evidence base, is being introduced in several European countries and is recommended as a new targeted cancer screening programme. The imperative now is to ensure that implementation follows an evidence-based process that will ensure clinical and cost effectiveness. This European Respiratory Society (ERS) task force was formed to provide an expert consensus for the management of incidental findings which can be adapted and followed during implementation. METHODS: A multi-European society collaborative group was convened. 23 topics were identified, primarily from an ERS statement on lung cancer screening, and a systematic review of the literature was conducted according to ERS standards. Initial review of abstracts was completed and full text was provided to members of the group for each topic. Sections were edited and the final document approved by all members and the ERS Science Council. RESULTS: Nine topics considered most important and frequent were reviewed as standalone topics (interstitial lung abnormalities, emphysema, bronchiectasis, consolidation, coronary calcification, aortic valve disease, mediastinal mass, mediastinal lymph nodes and thyroid abnormalities). Other topics considered of lower importance or infrequent were grouped into generic categories, suitable for general statements. CONCLUSIONS: This European collaborative group has produced an incidental findings statement that can be followed during lung cancer screening. It will ensure that an evidence-based approach is used for reporting and managing incidental findings, which will mean that harms are minimised and any programme is as cost-effective as possible.

ERS/ESTS/ESTRO/ESR/ESTI/EFOMP statement on management of incidental findings from low dose CT screening for lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Screening for lung cancer with low radiation dose computed tomography has a strong evidence base, is being introduced in several European countries and is recommended as a new targeted cancer screening programme. The imperative now is to ensure that implementation follows an evidence-based process that will ensure clinical and cost effectiveness. This European Respiratory Society (ERS) task force was formed to provide an expert consensus for the management of incidental findings which can be adapted and followed during implementation. METHODS: A multi-European society collaborative group was convened. 23 topics were identified, primarily from an ERS statement on lung cancer screening, and a systematic review of the literature was conducted according to ERS standards. Initial review of abstracts was completed and full text was provided to members of the group for each topic. Sections were edited and the final document approved by all members and the ERS Science Council. RESULTS: Nine topics considered most important and frequent were reviewed as standalone topics (interstitial lung abnormalities, emphysema, bronchiectasis, consolidation, coronary calcification, aortic valve disease, mediastinal mass, mediastinal lymph nodes and thyroid abnormalities). Other topics considered of lower importance or infrequent were grouped into generic categories, suitable for general statements. CONCLUSIONS: This European collaborative group has produced an incidental findings statement that can be followed during lung cancer screening. It will ensure that an evidence-based approach is used for reporting and managing incidental findings, which will mean that harms are minimised and any programme is as cost-effective as possible.

The Cancer Research UK Stratified Medicine Programme as a model for delivering personalised cancer care.

Genomic screening is routinely used to guide the treatment of cancer patients in many countries. However, several multi-layered factors make this effort difficult to deliver within a clinically relevant timeframe. Here we share the learnings from the CRUK-funded Stratified Medicine Programme for advanced NSCLC patients, which could be useful to better plan future studies.

European Respiratory Society guideline on various aspects of quality in lung cancer care.

This European Respiratory Society guideline is dedicated to the provision of good quality recommendations in lung cancer care. All the clinical recommendations contained were based on a comprehensive systematic review and evidence syntheses based on eight PICO (Patients, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes) questions. The evidence was appraised in compliance with the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Evidence profiles and the GRADE Evidence to Decision frameworks were used to summarise results and to make the decision-making process transparent. A multidisciplinary Task Force panel of lung cancer experts formulated and consented the clinical recommendations following thorough discussions of the systematic review results. In particular, we have made recommendations relating to the following quality improvement measures deemed applicable to routine lung cancer care: 1) avoidance of delay in the diagnostic and therapeutic period, 2) integration of multidisciplinary teams and multidisciplinary consultations, 3) implementation of and adherence to lung cancer guidelines, 4) benefit of higher institutional/individual volume and advanced specialisation in lung cancer surgery and other procedures, 5) need for pathological confirmation of lesions in patients with pulmonary lesions and suspected lung cancer, and histological subtyping and molecular characterisation for actionable targets or response to treatment of confirmed lung cancers, 6) added value of early integration of palliative care teams or specialists, 7) advantage of integrating specific quality improvement measures, and 8) benefit of using patient decision tools. These recommendations should be reconsidered and updated, as appropriate, as new evidence becomes available.

Factors influencing cancer patients' experiences of care in the USA, United Kingdom, and Canada: A systematic review.

The extent to which individual and structural factors influence cancer patients' reports of their experiences are not yet well understood. We sought to identify which groups of patients consistently report poorer experiences and whether structural care factors might also be associated with better or worse reports. We conducted a systematic review of literature in PubMed and Web of Science with the date of last search as 27th of February 2022 following PRISMA guidelines. We focused on studies from three established population-based surveys datasets and instruments. After screening 303 references, 54 studies met the inclusion criteria. Overall, being from an ethnic minority group, having a more deprived socioeconomic status, poorer general or mental health status, being diagnosed with poor prognosis cancers, presenting to care through an emergency route, and having delayed treatment were consistently associated with poorer cancer care experiences. Conversely being diagnosed with earlier stage disease, perceiving communication as effective, positive patient-provider relationships, and receiving treatment with respect were overall associated with better reports of cancer care experiences. Improvement efforts aimed at delivering better experiences of patient-centred care need to take account much more explicitly patients' differing characteristics, prognoses, and trajectories they take through their care journeys.

Clinical nurse specialists and survival in patients with cancer: the UK National Cancer Experience Survey.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether having a better care experience with a clinical nurse specialist (CNS) is associated with better overall survival of patients with cancer in England. METHODS: We identified 99 371 patients with colorectal, lung, breast and prostate cancer who reported their care experience with CNS from the National Cancer Patient Experience Survey (2010-2014) and English cancer registration linked dataset. We categorised patients' experiences into three groups (excellent, non-excellent and no CNS name was given), across three aspects of CNS care: the ease of contacting their CNS, feeling that a CNS had listened to them and the degree to which explanations given by a CNS were understandable. We used univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analyses to estimate HRs with 95% CIs by patient experience for each cancer adjusting for patients' sociodemographic and disease stage at diagnosis. RESULTS: Among the three compared groups, patients who reported not being given a CNS name had the lowest survival. In the adjusted Cox regression analysis, the results show that among those who reported not being given a CNS name, the highest risk of death was in those with colorectal, breast and prostate cancers only (colorectal HR: 1.40; 95% CI: 1.32 to 1.84; breast HR: 1.34; 95% CI: 1.25 to 1.44; prostate HR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.13). However, this association seemed reversed among patients with lung cancer, although attenuated when accounting for potential confounders. CONCLUSION: These findings provide new evidence of the vital contribution CNS may make to cancer survival and suggest CNS input and support should be available to all patients after the diagnosis.

Selection of eligible participants for screening for lung cancer using primary care data.

Lung cancer screening is effective if offered to people at increased risk of the disease. Currently, direct contact with potential participants is required for evaluating risk. A way to reduce the number of ineligible people contacted might be to apply risk-prediction models directly to digital primary care data, but model performance in this setting is unknown. METHOD: The Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a computerised, longitudinal primary care database, was used to evaluate the Liverpool Lung Project V.2 (LLPv2) and Prostate Lung Colorectal and Ovarian (modified 2012) (PLCOm2012) models. Lung cancer occurrence over 5-6 years was measured in ever-smokers aged 50-80 years and compared with 5-year (LLPv2) and 6-year (PLCOm2012) predicted risk. RESULTS: Over 5 and 6 years, 7123 and 7876 lung cancers occurred, respectively, from a cohort of 842 109 ever-smokers. After recalibration, LLPV2 produced a c-statistic of 0.700 (0.694-0.710), but mean predicted risk was over-estimated (predicted: 4.61%, actual: 0.9%). PLCOm2012 showed similar performance (c-statistic: 0.679 (0.673-0.685), predicted risk: 3.76%. Applying risk-thresholds of 1% (LLPv2) and 0.15% (PLCOm2012), would avoid contacting 42.7% and 27.4% of ever-smokers who did not develop lung cancer for screening eligibility assessment, at the cost of missing 15.6% and 11.4% of lung cancers. CONCLUSION: Risk-prediction models showed only moderate discrimination when applied to routinely collected primary care data, which may be explained by quality and completeness of data. However, they may substantially reduce the number of people for initial evaluation of screening eligibility, at the cost of missing some lung cancers. Further work is needed to establish whether newer models have improved performance in primary care data.

Being assigned a clinical nurse specialist is associated with better experiences of cancer care: English population-based study using the linked National Cancer Patient Experience Survey and Cancer Registration Dataset.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine whether being given the name of a clinical nurse specialist (CNS) is associated with better cancer patients' experiences across different points along their cancer care pathway. METHODS: We identified 100,885 colorectal, lung, breast and prostate cancer patients who responded to the National Cancer Patient Experience Survey between 2010 and 2014. We compared experiences of four key aspects of cancer care among patients who reported being given a CNS name with those who did not, adjusting for age, sex, socio-economic deprivation, ethnicity, route to diagnosis and disease stage. RESULTS: Across all cancers, patients who reported being given the name of a CNS reported better experiences with involvement in treatment decisions, care coordination, treatment with more respect and dignity, and overall care experience. Experience of being involved in treatment decisions was the aspect of care most strongly associated with being given a CNS name (colorectal: OR 2.69, 95% CI: 2.45-2.96; lung: OR 2.41, 95% CI: 2.07-2.78; breast: OR 2.68, 95% CI: 2.47-2.92; and prostate: OR 2.11, 95% CI: 1.92-2.32). CONCLUSION: These findings may provide new evidence of the vital contribution CNS make to cancer care and suggest their input and support should be available to all patients after the diagnosis.

Lung cancer: keep your mind open - it's not always the usualsuspects!

A member of the @EuropeanLung Lung Cancer PAG shares her experiences in lung cancer patient advocacy http://bit.ly/2IchKom.

ESR/ERS statement paper on lung cancer screening.

In Europe, lung cancer ranks third among the most common cancers, remaining the biggest killer. Since the publication of the first European Society of Radiology and European Respiratory Society joint white paper on lung cancer screening (LCS) in 2015, many new findings have been published and discussions have increased considerably. Thus, this updated expert opinion represents a narrative, non-systematic review of the evidence from LCS trials and description of the current practice of LCS as well as aspects that have not received adequate attention until now. Reaching out to the potential participants (persons at high risk), optimal communication and shared decision-making will be key starting points. Furthermore, standards for infrastructure, pathways and quality assurance are pivotal, including promoting tobacco cessation, benefits and harms, overdiagnosis, quality, minimum radiation exposure, definition of management of positive screen results and incidental findings linked to respective actions as well as cost-effectiveness. This requires a multidisciplinary team with experts from pulmonology and radiology as well as thoracic oncologists, thoracic surgeons, pathologists, family doctors, patient representatives and others. The ESR and ERS agree that Europe's health systems need to adapt to allow citizens to benefit from organised pathways, rather than unsupervised initiatives, to allow early diagnosis of lung cancer and reduce the mortality rate. Now is the time to set up and conduct demonstration programmes focusing, among other points, on methodology, standardisation, tobacco cessation, education on healthy lifestyle, cost-effectiveness and a central registry.

ESR/ERS statement paper on lung cancer screening.

In Europe, lung cancer ranks third among the most common cancers, remaining the biggest killer. Since the publication of the first European Society of Radiology and European Respiratory Society joint white paper on lung cancer screening (LCS) in 2015, many new findings have been published and discussions have increased considerably. Thus, this updated expert opinion represents a narrative, non-systematic review of the evidence from LCS trials and description of the current practice of LCS as well as aspects that have not received adequate attention until now. Reaching out to the potential participants (persons at high risk), optimal communication and shared decision-making will be key starting points. Furthermore, standards for infrastructure, pathways and quality assurance are pivotal, including promoting tobacco cessation, benefits and harms, overdiagnosis, quality, minimum radiation exposure, definition of management of positive screen results and incidental findings linked to respective actions as well as cost-effectiveness. This requires a multidisciplinary team with experts from pulmonology and radiology as well as thoracic oncologists, thoracic surgeons, pathologists, family doctors, patient representatives and others. The ESR and ERS agree that Europe's health systems need to adapt to allow citizens to benefit from organised pathways, rather than unsupervised initiatives, to allow early diagnosis of lung cancer and reduce the mortality rate. Now is the time to set up and conduct demonstration programmes focusing, among other points, on methodology, standardisation, tobacco cessation, education on healthy lifestyle, cost-effectiveness and a central registry.Key Points• Pulmonologists and radiologists both have key roles in the set up of multidisciplinary LCS teams with experts from many other fields.• Pulmonologists identify people eligible for LCS, reach out to family doctors, share the decision-making process and promote tobacco cessation.• Radiologists ensure appropriate image quality, minimum dose and a standardised reading/reporting algorithm, together with a clear definition of a "positive screen".• Strict algorithms define the exact management of screen-detected nodules and incidental findings.• For LCS to be (cost-)effective, it has to target a population defined by risk prediction models.

How representative are colorectal, lung, breast and prostate cancer patients responding to the National Cancer Patient Experience Survey (CPES) of the cancer registry population in England? A population-based case control study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the representativeness of National Cancer Patient Experience Survey (CPES) responders compared with the English cancer registry population in term of age, sex, socioeconomic deprivation, ethnicity, disease stage and median survival. DESIGN: Population-based case-control study. SETTING: England. POPULATION: We identified 103 186 colorectal, lung, breast and prostate cancer patients responding to at least one survey during 2010-2014 and randomly selected one non-responder from the cancer registry matched on cancer type and yearly quarter of diagnosis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: We compared age, sex, socioeconomic deprivation, ethnicity and disease stage between the two groups using logistic regression. We also compared survival (in years) using the Mann-Whitney test. RESULTS: Across all cancer types survey responders were younger, more likely to have a White ethnic background, to be resident in less deprived areas and diagnosed with earlier stage disease although they varied between cancers. Median survival for responders was also higher than for the cancer registry population (colorectal: 4.8 vs 3.2; lung: 2.0 vs 0.3; breast: 5.7 vs 5.4; and prostate: 5.7 vs 5.2 years; all p-values<0.001). CONCLUSION: CPES responders with the four most common cancers do not necessarily represent all patients with these cancers in terms of demographic characteristics and tumour stage at diagnosis. These limitations should be considered when interpreting findings. To capture the experiences of patients currently underrepresented in CPES, different approaches may need to be taken.